Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

windies

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    706

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by windies

  1. Posted · Edited by Windies

    Myke;2680405']Thank you' date=' thank you so much. Best proof that you just read what you want to read. Let me quote myself:

    Again, thank you, thank you. :icon_eek:

    ---------- Post added at 01:22 ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 ----------

    What are you doing talking about SP when we're all talking about MP then? This is what I'm talking about when I say you're biased and ignorant. I miss 2 letters in your post but you miss the entire point of the conversation or problems half the time. Seriously, I glossed over 2 letters in your post, whoops my bad. It's hard not to when the rest of your posts are such atrocious self absorbed diatribes towards people you dislike because they don't share the same biased outlook as you.

    True that, wasn't my intention to forget all those really helpful people who actually give really good bug reports. My apologies.

    Very subtle... :rolleyes: Guess I shouldn't expect any more from a biased moderator.

  2. Posted · Edited by Windies

    Myke;2680368']I'm sorry' date=' i'm only responsible for what i write, not for what you understand. Read through the bug feedback Maverick linked and see how many useless posts are in there. And please please, tell me where i said "all" or "everyone". I just said that those "fix it nao" peoples most likely get ignored, simply because their "feedback" doesn't contain any valuable info.

    And since you're accusing me of stereotyping, could you please answer my question from here: [url']http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS&p=2680317&viewfull=1#post2680317[/url]

    Thank you. Please stop picking arguments just to prove your point. either answer all or nothing.

    ---------- Post added at 00:47 ---------- Previous post was at 00:43 ----------

    NOTHING....erm, sorry...nothing. CPU load represents the usual downsides of multithreading: threads waiting for data from other threads, therefor idling. GPU waits for data from the CPU to render the scene. If CPU is under heavy load (which isn't represented by % number), the GPU load goes down. You might want to invest the idling power of the GPU to raise GPU related graphic settings.

    I'm not the only one misunderstanding you then apparently but nice try at deflecting this on to me. You're the one making the claims and telling people they're wrong and stereotyping them whether you yourself understand that or not. And I quote:

    No offense, but I do this sort of bug reporting every time (honestly, I try to be polite and assertive). A lot of good feedback has been given on these issues, especially the performance issue, so would you please not make us look like whiners and ragers that shout "fix this shit", because we sure as hell don't do that ?

    So it isn't just me that thinks you're being a bit stereotypical and narrow in your points of view and responses. But hey, keep thinking the world revolves around you and this forum, it's working for ya.

    As for a answer to your question, which has nothing to do with you stereotyping so I have no idea what you're on about there, give me some actual specifics like what part of the map, whether it's SP or MP, what actual settings you are using etc..., otherwise honestly I think you're full of crap if you're telling me you get 50-60 fps in MP with any actual kind of mission with moderate load.

  3. Posted

    Myke;2680342']Did you actually read through all the posts? People using it more like a forum than a bugtracker. It's unbelievable how people waste dev's time by forcing them to dig through unhelpful comments. Not really motivating.

    Personally' date=' i would get a lot more motivation out of a "nice work but there are a few rather serious issues to look into" rather than "it runs like s**t, fix it nao".[/quote']

    Again, you stereotype everyone with a problem into the "it runs like s**t, fix it nao" crowd. You act like none of us have tried to repro, tried to offer constructive criticism or even are still providing constructive criticism when asked. Just like you acted like anyone with a problem must be running 5 year old PC's with SUPER DUPER ULTRA settings. We can't help people who act like true tards or idiots from writing out complaints, but you seem to group anyone with a problem with them.

    Also, It's their effing job man, you act like they are primadonna's who can't do anything without the right circumstances or need to be patted on the back constantly when they trip up or screw up. I mean seriously, give credit where credit is due but you don't have to kiss ass with every critical comment you make in order to be helpful as long as you're not just trying to bash the crap out of the developers or something.

  4. Posted

    Also a lot of people don't come to this forum and probably don't realize it exists, and they're having issue's. Look at the Steam forums and it's a mess of people having issue's with the game and funny enough it's the same people from this forum over there telling them that everything is great, it's just a tactical shooter and performance is fine and blah blah blah etc... It's the same demographic over there saying everything is fine, but it's an entirely different demographic saying they are having issue's.

  5. Posted

    Myke;2680064']The point is: complaining doesn't help' date=' proper bug reporting does. Just putted it in the right words. It's not rocket science, really.[/quote']

    And after that point is reached, where proper data and reproductive steps have been given, it's up to the developers to do something about it. Hence all the complaining and the validity of the complaints. He's right in that complaining does raise awareness, it also puts pressure on the developers to focus on specific area's of trouble. Since we have any kind of a lack of competition, read Suma's remarks Here about when he was scared of the original Codemasters Operation Flashpoint release to get an idea of how pressure can be a good thing as well as a bad thing depending on how you handle it, the only pressure we can exert on BI to fix things is through complaints. So when you say complaints will be ignored, You're basically saying that customers will be ignored, users will be ignored because plenty of criticism and complaints contain constructive and even steps to reproduce issue's.

  8. Posted · Edited by Windies

    Myke;2679854']Wrong. Providing reproductive data and constructive critics will raise awareness. Complaining will just be ignored.

    How much more reproductive can you get than "Play the game with AI in a multiplayer server and observe the difference between the exact same scenario in SP"? Look at it like this, there's 300+ pages in this thread alone of ample reproductive data mixed with constructive complaints and general useless bitching and fighting. In general an empty map in SP has more FPS than an empty map in multiplayer. Everything added to it is simply just that, additions that cause problems. Fix the root cause first which is Multiplayer itself and then focus on the other stuff.

    With that said, optimizing and fixing AI routines for instance, Can still improve performance, but they aren't a direct cause of Multiplayer but of themselves. One does not == the other. At this point in time though, having provided ample enough data for the developers to at least have a good head start in fixing the problem as far as consumers are concerned, the only thing we can do is complain and hope that the voice is loud enough to instigate some type of hopefully positive response on the issue and therefor the complaints and criticism are certainly valid.

    Customer complaints should never be ignored because no matter how trivial you might think the complaint is, there is generally still some level of substance and valid criticism to the complaint. Another reason why you really should stay out of this topic and stop inflaming it with your narrow and naive opinions and points of view. I mean this without malice as well. Why inflame the situation for the sake of voicing your own opinion when you've even admitted that there are problems, but you are satisfied with those problems I.E. performance is bad, but your happy with what you get. It's far below any generally acceptable standard and any conceived industry standard.

  9. Posted

    In arma2-mp I only played missions/on servers with highest fps, so mostly PvP or with small amount of ai, same selective behavior in arma3-mp so my comparison have some "limitations". Currently I am playing on EUTW Servers (25p v 25p Altis-map) and have 35 minimum fps on full servers and only in fully destroyed cities with lots of players in it 30fps minimum. I don´t say all is ok in mp I wanted only denie that ALL gets worsed in a3-mp compared to a2-mp. Thats a difference.

    There's not much of a setting, besides view distance, I can max in ArmA 2 and no amount of sane AI that will drop me down to below the 15 or so minimum FPS I get in MP in ArmA 3. What you are basically saying is that you're "comparison have some "limitation"" means that you're comparison is biased because you're using selective behavior to get the best performance rather than comparing apples to apples.

  10. Posted

    never had more than 25-30fps in arma2 mp instead of arma3 I have 35 fps minimum. But thats very very subjective because different modes etc etc. My impression (subjective!) is that mp in arma3 have a little bit better minimum fps in the whole.

    I have to say that I think you're the only person I know claiming that ArmA 3 has better MP performance than ArmA 2. I and many others find it to be the inverse of that.

    ---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

    35 fps MINIMUM ?

    What system do you have ? Because quite frankly, and sorry if that sounds offensive, but I don't believe you. You might have 35 fps on average, but minimum ? NO! WAY!

    ^ Also this. I don't believe you either but just don't feel like arguing strawmen at this point.

  11. Posted

    About the new Steam Server browser:

    I think something might be wrong with it.

    It is much slower than the gamespy equivalent and it doesn´t seem to list all Servers. Some guys in my community can´t see any of our Arma 3 Servers in the Steam Browser, some see only one (like me). Is this because of some Port settings?

    I can never find half the servers with the Steam browser that I can with the Gamespy one. I don't know if it's a port setting or it could be some custom server config causing problems.

  13. Posted · Edited by Windies

    Myke;2679053']So you're ignoring those players which don't post on this forums because they don't have any problems (with the sold units in mind' date=' those are the majority) and call my view on it biased? Go figure. Most of the time there are the very same players nagging about problems.

    Does the game needs improvements? [b']Yes[/b].

    Does it have fundamental flaws? No. Not in my opinion. Am i allowed to have an opinion?

    It is simple math:

    250'000 units sold (fictive number) and 250'000 customers report problems = problem with the product.

    250'000 units sold and 2000 (fictive number again) report problems (which are mostly the same customers which already were unhappy with the previous products) = ???

    You may figure it out yourself. I for myself, if it works at most customers but not on a few (and i know the product is exactly the same) i wouldn't suspect a fault in the product itself at first place.

    People say they get 20FPS no matter what settings. First thing i do, launching the game and try it out. I get 40 FPS on high settings (VD ~3200), i lower the settings and FPS goes through the roof. What should i think there? I don't have a high end rig, my GPU is already a few years old (HD5870). Now tell me, what youd you conclude?

    People don't quit saying that the game is poorly programmed and/or poorly optimized. How can they know without having the source code (and more than often no programming knowledge either).

    I've seen users asking why they can't play on ultra settings and after some time i find out that this user has a 5 year old mediocre budget laptop and really tried to play on ultra...what do you say there?

    Face it, ArmA 3 will never reach 150FPS because it is not Call of Battlefield 34. It is ArmA 3, there is more going on under the hood than just fancy graphics and small areas. But there will always be some customers which will be never satisfied and will always see the game as the guilty. Even if suddenly ArmA 3 would run with 150FPS on ultra, there will always be unsatisfied customers still.

    So in other words, there's not enough people bitching so it must not be a problem? Also to say I was unhappy with the previous product and group me into that category in your mind simply because I take issue with the fact ArmA 3 runs terribly is blatant ignorance on your part because I basically loved OFP and ArmA. ArmA 2 was a bit of a letdown for me in some aspects but overall it wasn't terrible and OA was an improvement upon A2 but again there were still core issue's at that point.

    Basically what you are getting at is that people's expectations ARE the problem because we've been spoiled by games that have a certain acceptable level of performance and we're spoiled because we ask the same of ArmA. No one here want's it to run at 150fps, what we want is for an acceptable level of performance and we question why it is something like BF4 can run at 150fps yet ArmA can barely maintain 30-40 fps on same said hardware. Excuses like "Well it's the AI obviously!" and "I'm fine with 10-15 fps, I mean this is a tactical shooter not a run and gun shooter so performance doesn't matter" are basically borne of shit when if that was the case, usage would be through the roof in most cases. It's actually quite the opposite in that the software can't make use of the hardware because it's programmed for old tech and that creates a large bottleneck. It may very well be an issue with the AI, but that doesn't mean that because the AI is monolithic by nature it can never be fixed. So simply saying "Yo dawg it's the AI" is a completely ignorant and false justification as are just about any other generic justification that people throw out there like this game being a "tactical simulator" etc...

    You're allowed to have opinion, but I'm also allowed to tell you your opinion is full of crap and faulty. For one, you base your standard on your own presumptions and not on industry standards or commonly accepted standards. Secondly you're so biased in your opinion, and believe me it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are, that you assume that anyone with a problem is using 5 year old equipment and trying to run on ULTRA SUPER DUPER settings and then you don't even read what people post half the time. I'm thoroughly convinced at this point that you literally ad lib in these things into people posts when you read them. One guy say's he has a beast of a system and you use his performance as an argument about some guys secondary system being like 5 years old, it's like you don't even care about correctness or accuracy, simply about proving your point which is utterly wrong and faulty.

    The problem is that you don't even understand the problem, you're opinion is beyond faulty and you're completely biased when it even comes to trying to understand the problem by automatically putting the cause of the problem on the end user based on the fact that you say you encounter everyone trying to play on Ultra settings on 5 year old equipment which is hardly true at all and your responses in the 300+ pages of this thread are a testament to your ignorance. You're unwilling to be objective about it by any means and even provide a modicum of fact to your opinion.

    In essence, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about and at this point in time you need to keep quiet and stop inflaming the situation with people, because that's all you ever seem to do. I'm glad you have an opinion but it's pretty much been proven to be a biased and nonfactual opinion.

  14. Posted

    in my experience arma2 mp had bigger performance problems than arma3 mp. But not easy to compare....different missions, different islands and so on. In the last months arma3-mp performance made big steps forward. But I can´t speak for all mp-modes.

    I can't really take you seriously with the above bolded statement. I mean ArmA 2 had bigger multiplayer performance issue's than ArmA 3? I remember playing with GOL back around that time and we had literally no issue's with multiplayer. There were inherent issue's with the performance of ArmA 2 however, but they were not multiplayer exclusive and they were not simply a cause because of the AI.

  15. Posted

    Myke;2678842']It might sound like arrogance but it is daily experience. Players with sub-par PC's expect it to run on Ultra because game XYZ also runs on ultra' date=' not understanding that ArmA 3 isn't comparable with game XYZ.

    [b']Uhm, weren't we're talking about inferior performance in MP compared to SP? This negates your argument by 100%. According to your argument, MP should have superior performance than SP. But i see you have your opinion and wont let confuse you with facts. Please keep arguing, i'm no longer wasting my time in here. Haters gonna hate.[/b]

    It's been done like that since ArmA and OFP has existed and those titles haven't had the issue's in multiplayer that ArmA 3 has, don't be ignorant of that fact to try to prove your strawman argument. It's clear that something added to ArmA 3 has more than likely caused the multiplayer issue's since they didn't exist prior to ArmA 3, and that isn't AI locality.

  16. Posted

    Myke;2678805']This sentence is so definitive' date=' mind to explain where you got the source code from ArmA 3? And what is your CV related to programming? If you're so confident that you know what has to be done, did you applied for a programmers job at BI?[/quote']

    Well since it's already done across a network, it's hard to imagine it can't be done in the same fashion along the crossbar switch. Same basic principle. It also shows that the load can be spread across multiple physical entities, for instance a client and a server, or the Headless client and the server and the client. Don't need a degree in programming to see when the solution is already implemented in front of you and functioning, just not in the necessary way. Seems more to me that the problem is born out of laziness or obtuseness rather than a lack of an apt workforce or ignorant players.

  17. Posted

    Myke;2678410']Sure' date=' with an easy example: imagine a room full of people solving math problems on their desk. Every persons math problems include results from other people math problems. Without those results they can't continue and have to wait. Get it?

    And again the BF4 comparison. Calculating eyecandy is pretty straightforward and doesn't have the above described problem since nothing is really gameplay relevant. So please, stop taking BF4 as comparison or keep playing BF4. And maybe read some articles about multithreaded programming and it's downsides.[/quote']

    Except this analogy can be proven false simply by the way AI is handled online in that client AI is calculated Client side and server AI is calculated Server side and it's sync'd over the network, so theoretically why can't Core 1 AI be calculated on Core 1 and Core 2 AI be calculated on Core 2? Why the need for it to be single threaded I ask again? Also what about the other issue's that don't stem from AI but rather simply from the way the engine works and is programmed to work?

  18. Posted · Edited by Windies

    Myke;2678345']And there is the problem. BF' date=' CoD, Crysis and lots of other games are heavy on bling-bling visual effects. Of course with a SLI/Xfire system you get 100+FPS while the CPU doesn't count that much. Then comes ArmA 3 which is CPU heavy due to it's simulations and AI where Dual GPU wont help at all and suddenly your so-called high-end systems struggles to keep FPS above 30. Those previous named games led you on the wrong trail. You have new GPU's with SLI but a 5 year old CPU (which isn't bad after all) but you still thinks your system is high end. It is not. It is good, very good even but not high-end.

    :EDITH:

    Basically, you're depressed because your Ferrari got outrun by a Subaru Impreza on a rallye dirt track. Just as a example.[/quote']

    Guy has a brand new i5-4670K OC'd to 4.5ghz and you call it a 5 yr old CPU? I know you're referring to LSD's CPU, however the example is based on F3r4's system, which is pretty damn close, if not the epitome of top of the line. He gets 49 fps and probably would get close to 150 fps in just about any typical scenario in BF4 as a comparison. What is so special about ArmA that necessitates a 100 fps drop in performance in your opinion or rather, Why is it acceptable for ArmA to have less of a standard than other games in your opinion?

    Hell just for shits and giggles, following your logic I replaced my Phenom II 965 with my i5 3570K and kept the same GPU, A GTX 480, So I should have gotten oodles of performance right? Wrong. Before I got my R9 280x, I had a grand total increase of 5 fps average. After the R9, I got about a 35 fps increase overall but the same performance issue's in the same scenario's I.E. playing the game and not playing Altis/Stratis tourist. I also have a half used GPU now where as my GTX 480 would sometimes hit 100% utilization hovering around 50% or so usually, My R9 280X drops down to 20% utilization most of the time and maxes at 50% utilization. That's called a software bottleneck when your software can't make the same efficient use of different hardware of differing power using the same architecture and API's. That's not a hardware issue, it's a software issue.

    So let's just say it's all justified. Let's say ArmA 3's performance as it stands is completely justified as a hypothetical. Can you explain to me why it's justified? Why the CPU bottleneck is OK, why the AI needs to be single threaded, like so many other things in this engine and why it needs so many resources to operate and why the under utilization of GPU's because of the CPU bottleneck is appropriate? These being the real questions for you since you seem to think that criticizing ArmA's performance and comparing it to other games is apparently inappropriate and misguided.

    And for the record, I can run BF4 and I'm at 80-90% utilization across all cores and close to 100% utilization of the GPU. Of course according to Suma, it must be cause BF4 is running infinite math loops in the background to spike up usage and couldn't possibly be because their engine while buggy might actually be built and optimized for computers and systems of the last 10 years....

  19. Posted

    Can't you just close that message box and press OK in the bottom right?

    I got an average of 38fps

    dual 580gtx in sli

    i5 2600k @ 3.40 GHz

    16GB DDR3 RAM

    Windows 7 - 64bit

    Had most of the settings on ultra apart from post processing which I disabled.

    didn't work, just sent me back to the main menu.

  21. Posted

    @Performance One of the things that's most frustrating to me is that we're basically given a sandbox to play in, that we basically can't make use of. I don't buy the excuse of we are expecting too many AI or too much out of the engine. If that truly is the case then this engine is not suited for the purpose of this game anymore, even if it might be the only one out there that can do what the game needs. I don't mean that we need to switch engines, but rather the RV engine needs a serious overhaul if that truly is the case, and no excuses about things being too hard or needing tons of time to do things are going to change the fact that it needed to be done yesterday.

    When I read what Pettka wrote, I sum it up as basically: "We give you nice things, but you cannot use them." because that's what it boils down to in the end. We have the ability to just about recreate any scenario we can dream up, but ultimately we can't do it unless you're fine with terrible performance. I'm sure some people can rationalize to themselves and try to rationalize with others about how they can play this game with 1 FPS and how we're all spoiled little children to expect the game to run at 2 FPS, which is generally what most of the arguments boil down to. The fact remains that there's still a pretty big standard of performance out there, and even though ArmA is a niche game, it will only become even more niche and even harder to fix on it's present heading or course.

    While I welcome idea's and concepts like Zeus for instance, Concepts like that are what make Arma great, The foundation and the basics need to be completed and in place first. Right now we are on a seriously thin and rocky foundation. When I see something like Zeus being the focus, rather than fixing the rocky and unstable foundation, I begin to wonder about the teams priorities and leadership and honestly about the state of the game itself. I've been waiting since Alpha to basically enjoy this game, and frankly I'm still waiting. I've had a few good coop sessions with my normal group, but I've had plenty of headaches and issue's along the way that detract from the experience and frankly and bluntly put, wouldn't have happened or needed to happen given proper priorities and dare I say management. I'm sure people will bitch about me making the observation and how I'm unqualified to make such a statement. Tough shit, it's my opinion, deal with it.

    We can speculate all we want about why X feature's aren't in and why we get terrible performance and if it's draw calls or AI or physX or any number of things, it really doesn't matter though. At the end of the day it boils down to project management, someone said focus on X instead of Y and here we are.

  22. Posted

    Turning down details is NOT an option with such high end systems....

    I'm fine with turning down details if it's either a reasonable request OR/AND turning down the settings actually affects something other than making the game look crappier. Turning down texture detail for instance when my card has 3gb of VRAM and my system has 8gb of RAM is not a reasonable request for instance and it's not going to make a difference. Pretty much everything except for view distance and object detail has little to no effect on anything.

  23. Posted

    I had a mission located around Oreocastro with just around 100 AI, no scripts or anything, that caused horrendous performance problems. Why? Because most of the AI was in the town. That shouldn't do anything, since it was multiplayer and the bad performance was on the client, but there you have it.

    Any mission with large-scale engagement needs a supercomputer from space in order to work. Denying that doesn't help.

    If it's the one I'm thinking of, it's an epic mission but yeah it seemingly has terrible performance for absolutely no reason.

    ---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:43 ----------

    How about getting rid of the automatic "Return to formation" message for units that are far from the leader? It was introduced in Arma 2 and It's really annoying, especially in coop. You send a player to do something away from you and you need to hear "yourself" telling it to get back. it's pretty senseless. As a workaround, we just give the unit a WP or tell it to stop, but that can cause players to unintentionally disembark from vehicles. Can we find a single player that thinks that this feature has any value at all?

    this x1000, quite annoying after awhile.

  24. Posted · Edited by Windies

    Hey, don't belive this guy. I have a 30-55FPS in SP and and 20-40FPS in MP (depends on the server)

    Here is my rig:

    CPU: i5 2300 @2.8Ghz Air cooled stock fan

    GPU: GTX 560 STOCK

    RAM: 8Gb GSKILLED @1600Mhz

    HD: 2x Samsung 150Gb RAID 0

    Monitors: HP 21" @ 1680x1050 (where i play) and a ACER 19" (to keep an eye on TS3, system monitor and Recorder)

    All this with High-Ultra settings and a VD of 2500m

    I call BS on this since I have:

    i5-3570k @ 4.4ghz

    R9 280X

    8gb Gskill Ripjaws 1600 - 9-9-9-24

    120gb Kingston HyperX 3K SSD

    and I still easily drop to 10fps in multiplayer on most missions unless it's either a very small player count or a coop with very little AI. Even in SP in some stock missions I can drop to 15-20 fps and I use primarily the same settings I used when I had my Phenom II which is nowhere near Ultra except for shadows and textures on Very high. Everything else is generally standard or high except for object detail which I either use low or standard depending on how a missions performs. So I highly doubt your claim.

    But hey, I can get 120 FPS on the main menu now watching the little battle scenario and I can get like 150 fps on an empty map staring at the ocean :rolleyes:.

    *edit* oh and a view distance of 3000/1400/100.

  25. Posted · Edited by Windies

    Changing like 95% of the settings between Very Low and Ultra does fuck-all for performance. The only ones that really matter are View Distance, Terrain Detail and Object Detail. Basically, anything to do with the distance of rendered objects. Though, given the performance sometimes I am almost positive the game is rendering far more than it should be (i.e. non-existant or very poorly optimized occlusion culling).

    I've thought the same many times about poor occlusion culling. Actually on that note, I have a feeling the game is often doing/simulating/drawing/calculating more than it should or really needs to.

×